Poll: Can Science Improve Moral Awareness?

[Beyondo]

Given the fact that many of our companion animals were originally raised for food (and still are in many places), shows a shift in our morality, not accounted for by biology alone.
wa:do

Biology does explain why we don't eat our pets and in most if not all aboriginal societies it is common to own pets.

 

[painted wolf]

Most cultures do eat "pets". Dogs, Cats, Horses, Guinea pigs and so on were all domestic sources of protein.
Today we make laws against such actions.
Even chickens are now becoming "pets" and are off the dinner table.

Let's not forget ritual cannibalism.

wa:do

 

[Beyondo]

Most cultures do eat "pets". Dogs, Cats, Horses, Guinea pigs and so on were all domestic sources of protein.
Today we make laws against such actions.
Even chickens are now becoming "pets" and are off the dinner table.

Let's not forget ritual cannibalism.

wa:do

The animals that western society owns as pets are sources of protein in other cultures, but a pet is not eaten in any culture because the animal is a substitute for human companionship, or is considered a prized possession. So the behavior of pet ownership has nothing to do with morality, it has more to do with human emotional needs and social acknowledgment.

 

[painted wolf]

The animals that western society owns as pets are sources of protein in other cultures, but a pet is not eaten in any culture because the animal is a substitute for human companionship, or is considered a prized possession. So the behavior of pet ownership has nothing to do with morality, it has more to do with human emotional needs and social acknowledgment.

And you don't see that as being beyond pure biology?

wa:do

 

[Beyondo]

And you don't see that as being beyond pure biology?

wa:do

Not at all, its based in biology and nature re-enforces the behavior because of its efficacy. E.g. The Spartans and Nazis believed that a stronger genome arises by removing the weak, however taking care of the weak promotes technologies that make society stronger. So the empathy for the suffering is biological and it is biology that tests its efficacy, if the opposite where true societies that are similar to Sparta and Nazi Germany would flourish. So too with pet owner ship, there are efficacies to adopting animals as pets and so nature re-enforces the behavior.

 

[painted wolf]

Ok.. so we have adopting a pet... but then why eat it too?

Or, lets take the Greenland Norse... they valued cattle and shunned fish. How is it biologically sensible that they starved to death by eating their dogs first then their cattle but never touched seafood? (dispite the fact that seafood was plentiful and abundant)

wa:do

 

[Beyondo]

Ok.. so we have adopting a pet... but then why eat it too?

Or, lets take the Greenland Norse... they valued cattle and shunned fish. How is it biologically sensible that they starved to death by eating their dogs first then their cattle but never touched seafood? (dispite the fact that seafood was plentiful and abundant)

wa:do

As I said before biology tests the efficacy of an adptation...ergo the Norse adaption failed...

 

[Yerda]

Biology does explain why we don't eat our pets and in most if not all aboriginal societies it is common to own pets.

Where does biology explain this?

 

[prometheuspan]

Where does biology explain this?

Your stomach is not adapted to hard core meat eating. Eating meat of a vegetarian animal is one thing, the meat of a carnivore is quite a bit harder on the digestive system.

Evolutionary psychology gives many good reasons why we wouldn't eat pets from that angle as well.

 

[Willamena]

Evolutionary psychology gives many good reasons why we wouldn't eat pets from that angle as well.

But psychology is not biology; and neither is sociology biology. This is the point being made.

 

[Beyondo]

But psychology is not biology; and neither is sociology biology. This is the point being made.

No both psychology and sociology are based in biology. Both people and animals have neurons that are biological cells, those cells determine all animal, inclusive of humans, psychology and sociology.

 

[Commoner]

No both psychology and sociology are based in biology. Both people and animals have neurons that are biological cells, those cells determine all animal, inclusive of humans, psychology and sociology.

Then why not go a step further and just call it physics.

 

[Beyondo]

Where does biology explain this?

In the production of oxytocin and vasopressin in the brain of those who have adopted a pet as a companion, which is similar of those who care for offspring. Where the animals is of a prized possession the economic value of the animal prevents its destruction and that too can be explained by brian chemistry and neural network processes. In addition brian scans demonstrate what parts of the brain we use to make value decisions.

 

[Beyondo]

Then why not go a step further and just call it physics.

It is physics, but it makes it easier to evaluate and compare by classifing the type of systems we are dealing with.

 

[Commoner]

It is physics, but it makes it easier to evaluate and compare by classifing the type of systems we are dealing with.

Just because physics deals with the basic components of anything and everything, that doesn't make it "all physics". That's a pretty large logical leap you're making there - or, you're saying something completely meaningless.

In essence, you're confusing physics with its subject.

 

[Willamena]

No both psychology and sociology are based in biology. Both people and animals have neurons that are biological cells, those cells determine all animal, inclusive of humans, psychology and sociology.

Based on biology is not the same as being biology. Biology is a separate study.

 

[Beyondo]

Just because physics deals with the basic components of anything and everything, that doesn't make it "all physics". That's a pretty large logical leap you're making there - or, you're saying something completely meaningless.

In essence, you're confusing physics with its subject.

Ah...no...I'm able to apply the physics, which in the case of biology is based on chemistry that can be derived from Quantum Electro Dynamics. But it isn't always necessary to evaluate systems to such detail. I don't need to evaluate binary operations of computer when developing an application with a high level programming language, even though the binary operations of a computer are crucial for the application to operate. In computer science its called layers of abstraction, so too does physics have layers of abstraction at which one level is called biology...

 

[Beyondo]

Based on biology is not the same as being biology. Biology is a separate study.

No it is biology, however the studies of psychology and sociology have in the past been largely developed by behavioral observation, but such observations are always validated with biology, which is inclusive of chemistry.

 

[Willamena]

No it is biology, however the studies of psychology and sociology have in the past been largely developed by behavioral observation, but such observations are always validated with biology, which is inclusive of chemistry.

No, it's psychology and sociology. It makes it easier to evaluate and compare by classifing the type of systems we are dealing with.

 

[Commoner]

Ah...no...I'm able to apply the physics, which in the case of biology is based on chemistry that can be derived from Quantum Electro Dynamics. But it isn't always necessary to evaluate systems to such detail. I don't need to evaluate binary operations of computer when developing an application with a high level programming language, even though the binary operations of a computer are crucial for the application to operate. In computer science its called layers of abstraction, so too does physics have layers of abstraction at which one level is called biology...

I think you're missing the other layer - you know, reality. Once you say it's all physics, you're saying something about as meaningless as saying "it all is".